H
It's not a question I get asked, personally; but a chad friend of mine (actually guy I follow lol you think I have chad friends?) gets asked this question a lot of times. This post just answers the question he gets asked, "Why don't you make friends purely out of ethics, why does there have to be intellect, why make such hard standards to attain when people aren't equal (in terms of inherited intelligence)?"
The thing is, you can't be ethical if you're not intellectually capable, forget capable, in some sense sharp or brilliant.
I'm only going to be discussing small scale morals, I'll only tell you 'parts of the story' instead of 'the full story', why? Well, I don't know the full story because the full story is their entire life and every second counts, I consider it dishonest when someone says they're telling you the full story because they simply don't. For instance, if there was a serial killer, it would make sense for someone to just label him a serial killer and see he went to church and just label him doing this without any influence. I go one step further and tell people to examine all aspects of their entire life and every single second and obviously no one lives up to that, neither am I for that matter, I'll just explain briefly the most important standpoints which are related to a case.
I will only define intellect as nihilism; nihilism is 'the philosophy of rejection of belief' so you can imagine when being a nihilist, you're expected to research thoroughly again and again any conclusions you make and you go down this endless loop of researching whatever conclusions you've reached to come to a new conclusion and when something can't be proven wrong, that's where you stop, unless you're a hyperintelligent bot instead of a human because as humans, that's really, all we can do.
Being a nihilist requires someone to be high in conscientious and when you're high in conscientiousness, you're willing to work. This way you can be a nihilist as much as you can if you're intelligent compared to someone who isn't as intelligent as you.
I'll give you an example simplifying it down:
Imagine a mass murder happens.
The normal philosopher whatever they may practice takes into account the event itself and the outrage and labels the shooter as doing a morally wrong act (He doesn't know WHERE to LOOK)
A nihilist will look into detail the severity of the acts, what happened to the shooter and parts of his life documented to understand the supposed entire story as far as he can perceive and then see what fits his narrative and label it good or bad depending on his findings (He still lacks enough energy to look at everything carefully)
A bot nihilist goes into this loop of the entire universe looping again and again, trying to figure out why someone did what he did and it will evaluate everything leading up to it.
A bot nihilist doesn't exist but this guy is the most well informed and intelligent judge of ethics because he is omniscient in all realms.
It's an easy concept, never stop at ethical standpoints, evaluate moral standpoints again and again, in an endless loop, to finally figure out whether it's moral or immoral, I know you're not a bot, but you can at least, try your hardest and finally label yourself a good person objectively, because you tried.
The thing is, you can't be ethical if you're not intellectually capable, forget capable, in some sense sharp or brilliant.
I'm only going to be discussing small scale morals, I'll only tell you 'parts of the story' instead of 'the full story', why? Well, I don't know the full story because the full story is their entire life and every second counts, I consider it dishonest when someone says they're telling you the full story because they simply don't. For instance, if there was a serial killer, it would make sense for someone to just label him a serial killer and see he went to church and just label him doing this without any influence. I go one step further and tell people to examine all aspects of their entire life and every single second and obviously no one lives up to that, neither am I for that matter, I'll just explain briefly the most important standpoints which are related to a case.
I will only define intellect as nihilism; nihilism is 'the philosophy of rejection of belief' so you can imagine when being a nihilist, you're expected to research thoroughly again and again any conclusions you make and you go down this endless loop of researching whatever conclusions you've reached to come to a new conclusion and when something can't be proven wrong, that's where you stop, unless you're a hyperintelligent bot instead of a human because as humans, that's really, all we can do.
Being a nihilist requires someone to be high in conscientious and when you're high in conscientiousness, you're willing to work. This way you can be a nihilist as much as you can if you're intelligent compared to someone who isn't as intelligent as you.
I'll give you an example simplifying it down:
Imagine a mass murder happens.
The normal philosopher whatever they may practice takes into account the event itself and the outrage and labels the shooter as doing a morally wrong act (He doesn't know WHERE to LOOK)
A nihilist will look into detail the severity of the acts, what happened to the shooter and parts of his life documented to understand the supposed entire story as far as he can perceive and then see what fits his narrative and label it good or bad depending on his findings (He still lacks enough energy to look at everything carefully)
A bot nihilist goes into this loop of the entire universe looping again and again, trying to figure out why someone did what he did and it will evaluate everything leading up to it.
A bot nihilist doesn't exist but this guy is the most well informed and intelligent judge of ethics because he is omniscient in all realms.
It's an easy concept, never stop at ethical standpoints, evaluate moral standpoints again and again, in an endless loop, to finally figure out whether it's moral or immoral, I know you're not a bot, but you can at least, try your hardest and finally label yourself a good person objectively, because you tried.
